Don't insist on Aadhaar for social benefits: Supreme Court

The Bench reiterated it was incumbent upon the central government to ensure that the states complied with the Supreme Court's order of not making Aadhaar mandatory for availing social benefits under various schemes

 

The Supreme Court has directed the central and state governments not to insist on possessing Aadhaar for availing benefits under the various social security schemes as it reiterated an order it passed in September 2013.
 
A bench of Justice J Chelameswar, Justice SA Bobde and Justice C Nagappan, without going into concrete examples, said: "In certain quarters, Aadhaar are being insisted on by various authorities."
 
The apex court by its 23 September 2013 order, had said "no person should suffer for not getting the Aadhaar in spite of the fact that some authorities had issued a circular making it mandatory and when any person applies to get the Aadhaar voluntarily, it may be checked whether that person is entitled for it under the law and it should not be given to any illegal immigrant."
 
The Court reiterated its order after senior counsel Gopal Subramanium drew the attention of the court towards the Delhi government directive insisting on an Aadhaar for the registration of marriages. Subramanium had appeared for one of the petitioners.
 
The court did not appear appreciative when Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar submitted that some states were not abiding by the court order.
 
"It is your duty to ensure our orders are followed. You can't say states are not following our order," the Bench told him, stressing it was incumbent upon the central government to ensure that the states complied with the apex court's order.
 
Directing the next hearing of the matter in the second week of July and noting the presence of the centre and all the states, the court said: "We expect all to scrupulously adhere to our order dated 23 Sept 2013."
 
The court's order came as it took up the batch of petitions challenging the Aadhaar card which were last heard by it on April 28, 2014.
 
Karnataka High Court's former judge K S Puttaswamy had moved the court in 2012 contending that the entire Aadhaar scheme was unconstitutional as the biometric data collected under it was an incursion and transgression of individual privacy.
 
Comments
Davidson D
6 years ago
With this decision of Hon.ble Supreme Court, would it still be necessary for booking a refill of LPG cylinder. Can the consumer not take a stand that he should be charged the cost without the subsidy as Aadhar is not mandatory and transfer of subsidy in that scenario does not arise.
Davidson D
6 years ago
With this decision of Hon.ble Supreme Court, would it still be necessary for booking a refill of LPG cylinder. Can the consumer not take a stand that he should be charged the cost without the subsidy as Aadhar is not mandatory and transfer of subsidy in that scenario does not arise.
Mr Jitendra
6 years ago
I think the menace of Aadhaar has spread too wide and too deep to counsel any agency. Even schools right in cities in March 2015 ask Aadhaar card as proof of address for school admissions. Several websites have still not removed Aadhaar reference. If you walk into passport office with all address proofs, marksheets, certificates, the officer there still wants your Aadhaar because RPOs have their prerogative to ask for "more or additional documents to satisfy themselves". In practice a one year valid passport itself is enough for REISSUE of passport as the same acts as Proof of Identity, Proof of Address and Date of Birth. yet they want more documents. Harassment to the citizenry is deep rooted in bureaucracy.
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback